Last week I touched on Rick Perry’s chances compared to the rest of the Republican candidates. If you didn’t read the column, I’ll summarize: as much as I dislike the guy, I believe that he will win the Republican candidacy. Despite his less than stellar debate performances, he is stilling leading in the polls and is more than likely to absorb Bachmann and Ron Paul supporters, if and when lesser candidates become irrelevant. This may be unsettling to many of you, understandably so. After all, his persona and record scream George W. Bush redux, but this time with better hair.
I’m sure I speak for most if not all Northwestern liberals when I say this, but the last thing we want is another George W. Bush.
Regardless of which candidate wins, the problem is that politics in this country have already been and are still being driven further to the right. If the GOP takes the White House, our government will take two large steps to the right. More than likely, it will also take three steps backward in terms of policy reform.
Say goodbye to health care reform. Say goodbye to financial reform. Say goodbye to tax reform. So the only alternative appears to be President Obama, right?
That may not be the case. Third party candidates always run. And recently, Ralph Nader, of ruining-Al Gore’s-chances-at-president fame, called for liberals to support him in challenging Obama in the Democratic primary.
Let me first say that as a liberal with progressive tendencies, I do like Ralph Nader. He may not be able to win a high school popularity contest, but his record speaks for itself. Although his runs at political office have been horribly unsuccessful, his advocacy and non-profit efforts have produced meaningful change.
The reason for Nader’s failures as a Green Party candidate are quite clear. It is common knowledge that third party candidates get no love because it is practically impossible for them to succeed on the presidential level in our current electoral system. Recently I’ve spoken to several friends that have expressed desire to vote third party in the coming election. My gut reaction is, “Are you serious? Do you understand that you have no chance at getting a third party candidate elected? Do you understand how important the 2012 presidential election will be? Do you understand that there are a bunch of crazies up for election and we need every vote we can get to stop them?” I do sympathize, though, because I too have been itching to find a time to vote for the Green Party.
But now is not the time to scratch. I would vote for a third party candidate if the stakes weren’t so high or if we had a preferential voting system, but that is not the case.
Yet Nader isn’t just running third party this time around. This incumbency challenge is a different sort of beast, and probably of even greater concern. It is historical fact that when an incumbent is seriously challenged in the primary, he loses the presidential election. In the modern era, an incumbent has been challenged on five occasions and has lost every time. I may have some bones to pick with Obama, particularly with regard to his handling of the Bush era tax cuts, the debt-ceiling debacle and much of his foreign policy, but I still understand that he is the only nationally viable candidate. If you’re a progressive liberal or an independent disappointed with Obama, now is not the time to express your dissatisfaction. We must rebuff any challengers and unite behind our best bet if we don’t wish to see the see the clock of progress turned back four years.
Correction: this column has been updated to the correct version.
Steven Monacelli is a Communication junior.
He can be reached at [email protected]
